HAHA

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999

While ESPN has put together their Top 10 College Basketball Programs of the past decade, they also created their Top 10 most underachieving programs as well. Guess who's #1?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999

Tell me again just how bad MSU's fball program is.

If you look through the link, you'll find Katz's article citing MSU as the #1 basketball program in the nation over the past decade.

HAHA

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2865999

Sorry for the immature response but LOL @ Michigan.

You claim MSU fball as an embarrassing program and I'll lead the charge. However, I remember a lot of people here that claimed MSU fball to be far worse than U of M bball this past fall. I wonder what they'll have to stand on now.

Keep spittin' the truth DrTre11! True that shit. Michigan basketball is a maize and blue circus. Much love to the #1 Wolverines. LOL


Leaders and the best [smilie=master_emot:
laughing my ass off

I don't want to stick up for Michigan basketball because it doesn't deserve it, but this is a list of the most underachieving. Meaning that they never meet the expectations that they are given. And that starts with a good recruiter that sucks at coaching. It's not a list of the worst programs. (I do agree with the list by the way)

I don't want to get in the MSU Football vs. U of M Basketball debate, I just wanted to make a point.

I don't want to stick up for Michigan basketball because it doesn't deserve it, but this is a list of the most underachieving. Meaning that they never meet the expectations that they are given. And that starts with a good recruiter that sucks at coaching. It's not a list of the worst programs. (I do agree with the list by the way)

I don't want to get in the MSU Football vs. U of M Basketball debate, I just wanted to make a point.

Underachieving? Isn't that what MSU fball gets ripped for? That's what I rip them for. Let's be real, this is an embarrassing article for UM no matter how ya spin it. Hopefully they'll get something respectable on the court this year.

I suppose this means that everybody should give Beilein even more credit if he gets this thing turned around.

I'll stay tuned and wait to see if the MSU fans here give him the proper credit if/when it's due.

I suppose this means that everybody should give Beilein even more credit if he gets this thing turned around.

I'll stay tuned and wait to see if the MSU fans here give him the proper credit if/when it's due.


I'll give credit. But, I wouldn't think it would be that big of a challenge considering the fact that UMers always bring up the fact that they are a prominent university with great academics, tradition, blah blah blah. There should be enough left over talent in Michigan to put together a good program. Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, etc.

Can't argue with the list either. They deserve that ranking.

I'll give credit. But, I wouldn't think it would be that big of a challenge considering the fact that UMers always bring up the fact that they are a prominent university with great academics, tradition, blah blah blah. There should be enough left over talent in Michigan to put together a good program. Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, etc.

The funny thing is, Tre, is that I don't know ONE Michigan fan that wouldn't agree with you 100 Zillion percent.

I suppose this means that everybody should give Beilein even more credit if he gets this thing turned around.

I'll stay tuned and wait to see if the MSU fans here give him the proper credit if/when it's due.
I'm looking forward to a real life 98.6 human taking over the cadaver that is U-M hoop. I like Beilein. I applaud the choice and there is zero doubt in my mind that things are on the upswing as I type. He's a good hire.

When Michigan fans have been ripping TA for years and calling for his long past due canning, why would anyone think that Michigan fans wouldn't completely agree?
But as has been pointed out, the comparison to State fball is about who is better, not who is more of an underachiever. Michigan hoops should have been in the tourney several times in the past 6 years and wasn't there. That means underachieving. State football had no business being in a bowl game, so when they didn't get there it was no big deal. It just so happened that a few times State actually overachieved early in the year, put together some wins that looked more impressive than they really were, before the true colors came out. Still a worse program - if anything this proves it. At least the one program had some expectations, even if they failed miserably to meet them.

When Michigan fans have been ripping TA for years and calling for his long past due canning, why would anyone think that Michigan fans wouldn't completely agree?
But as has been pointed out, the comparison to State fball is about who is better, not who is more of an underachiever. Michigan hoops should have been in the tourney several times in the past 6 years and wasn't there. That means underachieving. State football had no business being in a bowl game, so when they didn't get there it was no big deal. It just so happened that a few times State actually overachieved early in the year, put together some wins that looked more impressive than they really were, before the true colors came out. Still a worse program - if anything this proves it. At least the one program had some expectations, even if they failed miserably to meet them.

Please explain to me when Michigan had good expectations bball. I can't remember them at all. I'd love to hear it. You claim Michigan is a better program yet you point out that they have done nothing but underachieve while MSU has overachieved in football. Nice logic. I love when you try to claim UM bball is a better program when they haven't won a BT title since 1987, haven't been in real postseason play in almost a decade, and haven't cracked the Top 25 in nearly a decade. MSU has done all of those things in football more recently. Good argument.

Almost every year they are picked to sneak into the tournament and every year they fail. I remember them having even higher expectations when they had Horton/Harris/Sims/Brown, etc all there. Nobody thought they'd make a final 4 or anything, but there weren't many years in the Tommy era (if any) that they had no business making the tournament. Especially the years following NIT runs, everybody thought they'd build on that. They never did.

I love when you try to claim UM bball is a better program when they haven't won a BT title since 1987, haven't been in real postseason play in almost a decade, and haven't cracked the Top 25 in nearly a decade. MSU has done all of those things in football more recently. Good argument.

Uh, Michigan won the national championship in 1989. Are you ignoring the national championship there? Or the two NCAA finals games in 1992 and 1993? I'm pretty sure MSU football hasn't been in or won the national championship game in quite some time. They played in the Rose Bowl in 1988 (the last thing you could count as a title game). And they finished 8th in the country that year BTW.

Ok, let me put it to you this way. If two teams play the same sport and 10 games each - team A is expected to go 1-9, team B is expected to go 5-5. Team A ends up going 2-8, while team B goes 3-7. Team A improved by 1 game over their expectations while B was a disappointing 2 games below. A overachieved and B sucked, yet B was better by one game. You may have to print this out and draw it up on a seperate sheet of paper, but it clearly shows how an underachiever can be better that an overachiever given expectations and results in a hypothetical situation. If you don't get that, you never will.

And as for Michigan having expectations, you yourself claimed that this year they had to make the tourney. You've ripped TA for not getting there with good recruits, haven't you? How many times have I heard you talk about Daniel Horton and Co. and how they had talent and TA couldn't get them there. So YOU had expectations. Meanwhile, State has been lucky at best to ever land more than 3 star talent for most of their team. The average starter for their team may not have even been a 3 star HS talent. Michigan hoops certainly had the talent, though they did nothing with it.

This argument is all about comparing NIT victories to bowl games that never existed or were embarrassments. They both suck, but at least one team gets to hang something resembling used toilet paper in their bleachers. The other doesn't even have that (unless you hang a banner for a Citrus Bowl win 8 years ago).

Please don't misunderstand and think I'm bragging about UM hoops. The one thing we can certainly agree on is they both suck, really bad. But our argument is simply who sucks worse. Look at winning percentage, that could be a start for you.
The article referenced the past 10 years, so let's look:
M hoops
Full season 169 - 144, winning 54% of their games
Big Ten 69-91, winning 43% of their games
State Football
Full season 61-58, winning 51%
Big Ten 33-47, winning 41%

So while both have sucked, Michigan has won 2-3% more, just edging out the Green and White. Man, this whole thing is pathetic.

The stringbean shooter-transfer from University of Ben & Jerry's is going to BC.

Wrong thread Hip

Almost every year they are picked to sneak into the tournament and every year they fail. I remember them having even higher expectations when they had Horton/Harris/Sims/Brown, etc all there. Nobody thought they'd make a final 4 or anything, but there weren't many years in the Tommy era (if any) that they had no business making the tournament. Especially the years following NIT runs, everybody thought they'd build on that. They never did.

So making it into the field of 65 would be considering "high expectations?" HAHA You "remember them havign even higher expectations when they had Horton, Harris, Sims, Brown" ??? I'm guessing those were their own expectations seeing that they were never picked to finish higher than 4th in the BT.

Uh, Michigan won the national championship in 1989. Are you ignoring the national championship there? Or the two NCAA finals games in 1992 and 1993? I'm pretty sure MSU football hasn't been in or won the national championship game in quite some time. They played in the Rose Bowl in 1988 (the last thing you could count as a title game). And they finished 8th in the country that year BTW.

Did you really name 92 and 93? Did those happen to be the years when Michigan cheated the game of college basketball by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring in players to win that otherwise wouldn't have even considered this embarrassing program?

Ok, let me put it to you this way. If two teams play the same sport and 10 games each - team A is expected to go 1-9, team B is expected to go 5-5. Team A ends up going 2-8, while team B goes 3-7. Team A improved by 1 game over their expectations while B was a disappointing 2 games below. A overachieved and B sucked, yet B was better by one game. You may have to print this out and draw it up on a seperate sheet of paper, but it clearly shows how an underachiever can be better that an overachiever given expectations and results in a hypothetical situation. If you don't get that, you never will.

And as for Michigan having expectations, you yourself claimed that this year they had to make the tourney. You've ripped TA for not getting there with good recruits, haven't you? How many times have I heard you talk about Daniel Horton and Co. and how they had talent and TA couldn't get them there. So YOU had expectations. Meanwhile, State has been lucky at best to ever land more than 3 star talent for most of their team. The average starter for their team may not have even been a 3 star HS talent. Michigan hoops certainly had the talent, though they did nothing with it.

This argument is all about comparing NIT victories to bowl games that never existed or were embarrassments. They both suck, but at least one team gets to hang something resembling used toilet paper in their bleachers. The other doesn't even have that (unless you hang a banner for a Citrus Bowl win 8 years ago).

Please don't misunderstand and think I'm bragging about UM hoops. The one thing we can certainly agree on is they both suck, really bad. But our argument is simply who sucks worse. Look at winning percentage, that could be a start for you.
The article referenced the past 10 years, so let's look:
M hoops
Full season 169 - 144, winning 54% of their games
Big Ten 69-91, winning 43% of their games
State Football
Full season 61-58, winning 51%
Big Ten 33-47, winning 41%

So while both have sucked, Michigan has won 2-3% more, just edging out the Green and White. Man, this whole thing is pathetic.

Despite my posts, I honestly have no interest in getting into this debate again. The ONE thing I wanted to point out was that many UM fans here throw jokes out about State football daily in the fall, yet your bball program is just as embarrassing if not more.

In response to some of that above: Did I put the expectation of making it to the tourney on Michigan this past year? Yes. Is making it to the field of 65 a high expectation? NO! Some of MSU's crap bowl appearances equal that. Silicon Valley, Alamo, etc. NIT? There are no bowls for college football teams ranging in the 65-70s. In regards to the recruits, MSU has had as many 4 star guys in fball as UM has had in bball. MSU got two #1 players in the nation (Rogers and Duckett) within a couple of years.

Embarrassing arguement, yes. But I'm sick and tired of the MSU fball jokes when UM bball is a disgrace.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Michigan fan that gets upset with a joke about the UM basketball program. Why isn't that the case with MSU fans and football?

No fucking shit.
The thin skinned Sparty is hilarious. UM fans know and understand that the UM BBall program is a fucking joke, and can admit it.
Sparty cries like a girl whenever someon calls their pathetic football team the joke that it is.
Anyway, it's kind of a back handed compliment. I actually can NOT believe that Sparty Football is as bad as it is, that they should be in the upper half of the Big 10 every year, and every bit as good as an Iowa or even Wisconsin every year.
The fact that they aren't, and that they fell off the map in about 1967, is weird to me.

Yeah, I really love seeing the T-shirt that lists the money players took, then on the back seeing "Michigan facing countless sanctions = priceless". And guess who owns that shirt? So you may get sick of hearing crap, but you're not the only one. We can suck it up and laugh and try to get over it - even though it still irks us - but can you? Every time you talk about Mateen flashing his massive cro-magnon grin during a blowout, we have to come back with 49-3 and the last straw for Bobby Williams because you give us no choice.

You guys are hilarious, especially you and your post Zip. I've been on here for 10 months ripping MSU football. I've joined in on ripping their program. So what the hell are you talking about with all this thin skin crap. If I had thin skin I wouldn't be on a UM dominated forum would i? It's just a little obnoxious at times. So is that how it works Jethro, MSU fans run their mouths and then you're forced to pull out the jokes? riiiiiiight.

This whole thread proves you can't handle the jokes Glenn. UMers have come to the defense of an embarrassing program when Spartan fans laugh at it.

Is logic completely lost on you? UM fans defending their team? Hardly. I've proved just how bad they are. We're defending against your failure to understand the difference in underacheiving versus just plain sucking without expectation, but that's it.

And look, I can't guarantee I would never rip State - it's the nature of the rivalry to rip them. But I have tried before, and it never lasted because I was tired of one-sided mock fests. So at least I've tried and yes, after taking a pummeling I shot back. So don't question me on that. Has it been a lifelong philosophy? Not by any means.

This whole thread proves you can't handle the jokes Glenn.

That's a stretch.

Here's a good test that will show you the difference:
Make any joke you want to about UM basketball, I'll be right there laughing with you. I might even make one myself (see all of my NIT references and taking that shit over the top this past March).

Then I'll make one about MSU football so you can laugh too.

You will laugh too, won't you?

For example: You can't spell Bill Martin without NIT. Chuckle chuckle.

A guy walks into a bar in Ann Arbor (as Adrian Arrington is leaving in some girls car) and says to the bartender "I've got a great Michigan joke. Wanna hear it?" Bartender says, the big guy next to you is Marques Slocum, 5 star line recruit. On the other side the tall guy is Brent Petway towering over you. Are you sure you still want to tell the joke? The guy thinks for a minute and replies "No, I don't have all night to try to explain the punch line to them." (rim shot)

See, I even ripped UM football a couple times there.

...as if being a Michigan basketball fan wasnt bad enough. F the damn University for actually putting sanctions on themselves. They shoulda went the OSU way and just let the NCAA punk our asses

Is logic completely lost on you? UM fans defending their team? Hardly. I've proved just how bad they are. We're defending against your failure to understand the difference in underacheiving versus just plain sucking without expectation, but that's it.

And look, I can't guarantee I would never rip State - it's the nature of the rivalry to rip them. But I have tried before, and it never lasted because I was tired of one-sided mock fests. So at least I've tried and yes, after taking a pummeling I shot back. So don't question me on that. Has it been a lifelong philosophy? Not by any means.

I understand the difference between sucking and underachieving, however in this case they are wrapped tightly together. When failing to meet expectations of mediocrity (thus the Underachievement award) Michigan fell into the we suck really bad category.

Actually, Michigan bball IS mediocre. They just never achieved anything beyond that recently. MSU football was expected to be mediocre and was. Thus, plain old sucking. Michigan bball was expected to progress out of mediocrity at some point under Tommy and never did. Thus underachieving and sucking as well. Michigan bball was only marginally better because it at least flirted with a chance at the tourney, but that is nothing to get excited about.

You guys are hilarious, especially you and your post Zip. I've been on here for 10 months ripping MSU football. I've joined in on ripping their program. So what the hell are you talking about with all this thin skin crap. If I had thin skin I wouldn't be on a UM dominated forum would i? It's just a little obnoxious at times. So is that how it works Jethro, MSU fans run their mouths and then you're forced to pull out the jokes? riiiiiiight.

This whole thread proves you can't handle the jokes Glenn. UMers have come to the defense of an embarrassing program when Spartan fans laugh at it.

"Maybe no one wants to go there"--Zip Goshboots

"Where is Moodini with the maturity plea?"--Dr Tre the Hypocrite

"Maybe no one wants to go there"--Zip Goshboots

"Where is Moodini with the maturity plea?"--Dr Tre the Hypocrite

How am I being a hypocrite moron? Moodini told me we needed to be more mature with our ripping the other program, so I made a little joke about that. Do you know what "hypocrite" means?

Actually, Michigan bball IS mediocre. They just never achieved anything beyond that recently. MSU football was expected to be mediocre and was. Thus, plain old sucking. Michigan bball was expected to progress out of mediocrity at some point under Tommy and never did. Thus underachieving and sucking as well. Michigan bball was only marginally better because it at least flirted with a chance at the tourney, but that is nothing to get excited about.


What Michigan has been lately is NOT mediocre. Mediocre would be making the tourney and being a first game out. Not making the tourney in a decade is not mediocre.

Tre:
You seem neither able to tell a joke, nor know when one is being told.
From now on, when I post something, make sure you understand that I am shooting first for the "funny bone"*, and secondly, to display my extreme intelligence (which has just gone up a few notches due to my graduating college HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*The "funny bone", though a real bone located somewhere near the coccyx, is not the source of humor, nor does having it bludgeoned with a ball peen hammer make one laugh.

Tre, you need to loosen up a bit, maybe have your freinds rotate your ears a quarter turn (but only when you are drunk, which I would advise you to do nearly every day). We are not as diametrically ooposed as you want everybody here to think we are.

I might be able to find humor if I could understand half of the posts.

Zip posts and I go, "huh?"
http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/beat-street/reviews/pix/shrek2ndonkey.jpg

I might be able to find humor if I could understand half of the posts.

Zip posts and I go, "huh?"
http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/beat-street/reviews/pix/shrek2ndonkey.jpg

Tre and I were in our masters class last night and the professor said that she'll be grading us on our posts on our online discussion board. I leaned over to Tre and said "Zip would be screwed."

What Michigan has been lately is NOT mediocre. Mediocre would be making the tourney and being a first game out. Not making the tourney in a decade is not mediocre.

From Webster's:


Main Entry: me·di·o·cre http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?medioc01.wav=mediocre'))
Pronunciation: "mE-dE-'O-k&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin mediocris, from medius middle + Old Latin ocris stony mountain; akin to Latin acer sharp -- more at EDGE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/edge)
: of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ORDINARY (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ordinary), SO-SO (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/so-so)

"Moderate to low quality. Ordinary." That sounds like Michigan Basketball to me. How is being in the top %20 (65 of 336 teams) of college basketball considered moderate to low quality? If they made the tournament they would certainly not be mediocre according to Websters.
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/so-so)

Tre and I were in our masters class last night and the professor said that she'll be grading us on our posts on our online discussion board. I leaned over to Tre and said "Zip would be screwed."

OH!
SERVED again! That's cold, Moodini.
She must be a fan of mundane rundowns of mock drafts, who the Pistons might use as a third string point guard, and whether or not Manny Harris is over rated.
I'd probably sleep through that class, anyway.

Tre and I were in our masters class last night and the professor said that she'll be grading us on our posts on our online discussion board. I leaned over to Tre and said "Zip would be screwed."

That's exactly how it went down, I cracked up laughing!

From Webster's:
"Moderate to low quality. Ordinary." That sounds like Michigan Basketball to me. How is being in the top %20 (65 of 336 teams) of college basketball considered moderate to low quality? If they made the tournament they would certainly not be mediocre according to Websters.
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/so-so)

Because you should only be comparing yourself to the Top 100 of that 336. You are a BT team, why compare yourself to some high school quality schools? There are about 100 real college basketball programs, therefore if you aren't in the top 65 or so-not mediocre.

That's exactly how it went down, I cracked up laughing!
We mock what we do not understand.

Because you should only be comparing yourself to the Top 100 of that 336. You are a BT team, why compare yourself to some high school quality schools? There are about 100 real college basketball programs, therefore if you aren't in the top 65 or so-not mediocre.
You are making your argument worse. If you eliminate the dozen or so automatic teams and just get down to the 1-11 seeds (which are basically the real teams), that makes Michigan even better. They are one of those teams in the top 10 that don't make the tournament. So that means they are really in the 45-55 range in terms of actual finish. That's even better than the 65-75 range if you consider the crappy auto bids.

By no means do I think finishing 45-55 is good. That is a huge underachievement to never crack the top 45 or so teams for that long. It sucks. but if you think there are 100 or so legit teams then your are basically saying Michigan is an average team. To me, that is not "failing to achieve mediocrity", which is how you described it.

You claim there are 100 real teams. Break it into thirds. 112 are above average, 112 are average, and 112 are below average. They easily fall into the above average category, which qualifies them for mediocre at least.
Remember, underachievement involves two things - expectations and results. When results don't meet expectations, you have underachievement. If the article (which I didn't take time to read) didn't define expectations, it's a seriously flawed article. That makes it one writer's skewed opinion. That's why I prefer to use stats and set a standard so you can truly make comparisons. I would like to know preseason ranks versus postseason ranks. That will truly tell you who achieved and who didn't.

Reminding everyone once again - not defending Michigan here. I fully agree with EVERYONE that their level of play and achievement has been unacceptable and enbarrassing. If I truly felt they were the worst, I would have no problem admitting it. I don't think there's anything to brag about. I agree that they have been more disappointing than Spartan football, I just don't agree that they've been as pathetic.

Good God! Okay, fine...they are mediocre. Do we really need 18 paragraphs to define it. Simple disagreement on just how bad they are. Not worth 37 defining paragraphs. Jethro, I threw out 100 programs because those are the programs you should compare yourself with. So no, your whole 1st hundred, 2nd hundred, etc. doesn't work.

Not as pathetic as State football? How do you figure? You haven't been in postseason play in a decade. What leg do you have to stand on? Don't throw me 8,000 stats. Just simple explanation, how can you really believe that? Maybe we should define the word pathetic. Michigan has had 0 success in a decade. MSU at least has had SOME.

I don't think either has had any success in the last decade. MSU has one decent bowl win (over Florida in 2000). Michigan has some NIT wins. neither is really any special in a 10 year period.

C'mon, you don;t think that the Great Drew Stanton leading MSU to a 14-21 record over the last three seasons doesn't beat UM going to the NIT all those years?
Next Thread: Comparing horse shit to cow shit: Which one smells worse?

Next Thread: Comparing horse shit to cow shit: Which one smells worse?

Where is Giffman when you need him?

Just a simple explanation? Are you freaking serious? I use stats because simple explanation after simple explanation is completely lost on you. So, here's a novel idea, I try to back it up with something tnagible as evidence since the "simple explanation" isn't getting through the green fog your head is in. Then, when I do that and back it up, BECAUSE I CAN, you want me to back it up into another simple explanation. Sorry, I can only beat my head into a brick wall so many times before the blood in my eyes gets annoying.

I'm done with this thread.

I don't think either has had any success in the last decade. MSU has one decent bowl win (over Florida in 2000). Michigan has some NIT wins. neither is really any special in a 10 year period.

LOL @ WTFChris and his goggles. I love how you just push aside a Top 5 finish for MSU football in 2000. "Decent bowl win" haha Michigan State finished #5 in the nation that year after beating Florida in their bowl game. It wasn't MSU's fault that it wasn't a BCS game, it was the shitty bowl system. Michigan went to the BCS over MSU even though MSU beat Michigan and finished higher in the BT. "Michigan travels well."

You're so full of shit it is unbelievable Chris, you just compared a Top 5 finish and bowl victory over Florida to winning the freaking NIT????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UNBELIEVABLE.

Just a simple explanation? Are you freaking serious? I use stats because simple explanation after simple explanation is completely lost on you. So, here's a novel idea, I try to back it up with something tnagible as evidence since the "simple explanation" isn't getting through the green fog your head is in. Then, when I do that and back it up, BECAUSE I CAN, you want me to back it up into another simple explanation. Sorry, I can only beat my head into a brick wall so many times before the blood in my eyes gets annoying.

I'm done with this thread.

Good, I'm glad you're done. I said forget the 8,000 stats because WE ALL KNOW THAT JETHRO WILL TWIST STATS IN HIS FAVOR EVERY CHANCE HE GETS. I can come with twisted stats as well. Actually I only need one. 0 postseason appearances in a decade. That's all I need. If you think 2% more victories or some bullshit makes up for that, you're lost. Stop trying to "win the argument" and listen to yourself. While MSU has had some average-crappy bowl appearances along with their 00 Top 5 finish, Michigan has had ZERO POSTSEASON APPEARANCES in bball. I guess that green fog I'm lost in is clouds of reality.

Michigan has had ZERO POSTSEASON APPEARANCES in bball. I guess that green fog I'm lost in is clouds of reality.

Then I suppose reality has nothing to do with the NIT? Isn't that considered "post-season?"

LOL @ WTFChris and his goggles. I love how you just push aside a Top 5 finish for MSU football in 2000. "Decent bowl win" haha Michigan State finished #5 in the nation that year after beating Florida in their bowl game. It wasn't MSU's fault that it wasn't a BCS game, it was the shitty bowl system. Michigan went to the BCS over MSU even though MSU beat Michigan and finished higher in the BT. "Michigan travels well."

You're so full of shit it is unbelievable Chris, you just compared a Top 5 finish and bowl victory over Florida to winning the freaking NIT????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UNBELIEVABLE.

I think it's a valid comparison. You've got maybe seven people in the enitre world who give a shit about the NIT, and about seven people in the world who even know that MSU has a football team.

Then I suppose reality has nothing to do with the NIT? Isn't that considered "post-season?"

No reality doesn't include the NIT homeboy. I'm with DrTre11. Michigan fans are honestly the only fans I've ever met that talk about the NIT like it's a good thing. Most fans treat the NIT like that stray convict alcoholic family member that nobody talks about- try to pretend it doesn't exist. I was going to throw my hat into the ring in this one, but if I'm dealing with fans that consider NIT postseason play, why bother. It's like debating with retards. Besides, looks like Tre already murdered ya anyways, no need to help.

No reality doesn't include the NIT homeboy. I'm with DrTre11. Michigan fans are honestly the only fans I've ever met that talk about the NIT like it's a good thing. Most fans treat the NIT like that stray convict alcoholic family member that nobody talks about- try to pretend it doesn't exist.

Sorry, dickhead, but Michigan fans don't give a rat's ass about the NIT either. It's just there to point out that NIT is equivalent to any bowl game that isn't in the BCS series.

Sorry, dickhead, but Michigan fans don't give a rat's ass about the NIT either. It's just there to point out that NIT is equivalent to any bowl game that isn't in the BCS series.

Some more brilliant retard logic. BTW, I think you told me to relax the other day and now you're calling Knockout a dickhead.

Anyways, good logic Zip. "Any bowl game that isn't in the BCS series is equivalent to the NIT." LOL There are 4 BCS Bowl games. That's 8 teams! So if you are the #9 team in the country, your season amounts to a NIT appearance? WOOOOOOOOOOOOW!

Here is something for you to chew on Wolvies: There are 28 bowl games. That means 56 teams get to play in bowl games. Therefore, if you are playing in the 4-5th worst bowl in all of the NCAA you are still in the Top 50 teams. 65 teams in the NCAA tournament. So quit comparing a NIT to a crappy bowl birth, because they aren't the same. There is not a single bowl that is as bad as the NIT. Retards like Zip are trying to convince us that being the 9th best team is equal to Michigan's NIT Championship. WOW.

Look at the Doctor spittin shit. I'm glad you posted that shit on the bowls Doc, I was wondering how many there were. It's obvious when there are 56 bowl teams that that is equal to a NCAA tourney appearance if you're at the bottom. Do mental hospitals now give WTFDetroit access on their computers. This Zip retard is comparing NIT's to just missing a BCS game. Damn, there needs to be more quality posters here.

Ok, I really can't be done when retards are running the asylum.
56 teams make bowls, yet there are only 119 teams eligible. That means almost half of the teams are in.
Meanwhile, 97 basketball teams make it to one of the two postseason tournaments. 97 out of 336. That's less than 1/3.

Spinning or not, you try to make those numbers work somehow in your favor. I'm just putting them out there for anyone to interpret however they want, since apparently I can't put them out there without skewing them. Other claim they can do the same, and yet they rarely do. Hmmm.

Look at the Doctor spittin shit. I'm glad you posted that shit on the bowls Doc, I was wondering how many there were. It's obvious when there are 56 bowl teams that that is equal to a NCAA tourney appearance if you're at the bottom. Do mental hospitals now give WTFDetroit access on their computers. This Zip retard is comparing NIT's to just missing a BCS game. Damn, there needs to be more quality posters here.

Dickhead, almost half the teams that play D1 football get in, all you got to do is win 6 fucking games, and your wins against the D1A cupcakes count.
Nobody gives a shit about Michigan State football period, and even fewer are going to remember you playing in your once a decade second rate bowl.
But they will remember that a great coach like Saban bolted on your pathetic asses on the eve of that shit bowl, and you have since reclaimed your perrennial spot in the toilet.

Dickhead, almost half the teams that play D1 football get in, all you got to do is win 6 fucking games, and your wins against the D1A cupcakes count.
Nobody gives a shit about Michigan State football period, and even fewer are going to remember you playing in your once a decade second rate bowl.
But they will remember that a great coach like Saban bolted on your pathetic asses on the eve of that shit bowl, and you have since reclaimed your perrennial spot in the toilet.

Okay, there are hundreds of schools that have a basketball team. Most of them you never heard of, or their 1AA teams, etc. etc. Give me a break.

Nobody gives a shit about MSU football, I can say the same for UM bball. Your point?

The Citrus Bowl against Top 10 Florida is a "second rate bowl." Great logic again Zip.

I want to appologize, i definately got us off track with this comparison stuff. Let me get us back on topic, which is how underachieving Michigan basketball has been and how they finished #1 in that area. MSU football has never been #1 on a list like this, so I shouldn't have mentioned them in this category (off topic, my bad). Let me get us back on topic with a quote from the article:

How do you define underachieving? It's more than being consistently bad -- there are plenty of programs in Division I that can claim that dishonor.

Jethro, Zip, Chris...you can take it from there.

LOL @ Michigan.

Yeah, the Citrus Bowl is second rate, and we Michigan fans should know, as UM has played in a few.
Now there are five BCS bowl games, if I'm not mistaken. Fiesta, Orange, Rose, Suger, and the new "BCS Game".
That's 10 teams out of 112. Those are the ten teams worth caring about for that season, the rest is mediocre bullshit.
Same for the NCAA Tourney: it gives you 65 teams to care about (though there are MAYBE 15 that have a chance to win it).
The point is that anything below BCS is the NIT, dickhead #2. The BCS "tournament", if you will, is for the ten teams that had a chance to win it, and the other bowl games are for the rest of the teams to get a nice vacation and play a meaningless game at the end of their season. Same for the NIT.
And if you are still awestruck over that 2000 season, then you should maybe get out a little more.

MSU football has never been #1 on a list like this, so I shouldn't have mentioned them in this category (off topic, my bad)

Wrong again, Einstein. MSU was THE number one ranked underachiever in football in a poll that got heavy ESPN discussion either this past year or last. Go to your ESPN Insider page and you can find it there. I would do it myself, but I'm not an ESPN Insider.
I know, Tre, facts are funny things, and you will NOT let them get in the way of your rants.

I want to appologize, i definately got us off track with this comparison stuff. Let me get us back on topic, which is how underachieving Michigan basketball has been and how they finished #1 in that area. MSU football has never been #1 on a list like this, so I shouldn't have mentioned them in this category (off topic, my bad). Let me get us back on topic with a quote from the article:

How do you define underachieving? It's more than being consistently bad -- there are plenty of programs in Division I that can claim that dishonor.

Jethro, Zip, Chris...you can take it from there.

LOL @ Michigan.

How to define underachieving. Well, I've already done this once in the thread, but I'll go again. A team actually doesn't even have to be consistently bad to be an underachiever. The primary qualification is total failure to meet expectations.
Look at the Pistons for example. They've been in the conference finals for 5 years in a row now. With that talent, if they had made the playoffs but lost in the first round every year, they would be massive underachievers. The Timberwolves would be a good example. All those years that they couldn't win in the postseason made them huge underachievers, but you wouldn't say they were consistently bad really.
The Lions, on the other hand, are consistently horrible, but they're less of an underachieving team because horrible is now the expectation. If they win 6 games, they exceed expectations and therefore may actually OVERachieve.
Perfect example of underachieving from the world of sports. In hockey, the New York Rangers have long had the highest payroll in hockey and nothing to show for it. Many years they were dreadful even. Actually, the Knicks are the same way. You could very easily say the Knicks are the most underachieving team in basketball. They may not be the worst, as I would pick them over the Hawks any day, but the Knicks have a huge payroll, guys that can score, and massive expectations every year. They never meet those expectations. Meanwhile, the Hawks are worse but people know they're going to be bad, so they aren't nearly the underachiever the Knicks are, because the Knicks are SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER.

To now relate it to the actual subject, that's why Michigan basketball is atop this list. For so long now, they were supposed to be better than this. Every year they've had the talent, they've been a big and prestigious school in a powerful conference and in a state known for hoops talent, and yet they could never get out of the shadows of conspiracy and give their fans a team that could finally make people forget about Ed Martin and his "employees". Until they do, given all the resources they SHOULD have, they will be an underacheiving team - no matter if they win 20 games or 12 - the country expects a school like Michigan to do better. They've been there before, winning a title within the past 20 years, and they could have been there even more recently. They still would have had success even if they hadn't cheated. Not all, but many of the guys they "bought" would have gone to Michigan anyhow. But even when they did cheat, the teams with Traylor, Taylor, Ward, Bullock, White, baston, etc never got anywhere near where their talent should have gotten them. A couple of those guys were on the level that a guy like Delvon Roe is now. Ward was supposedly the best player in the country, and he came for free. Then you include guys like Robinson, Blanchard, Horton, Harris, Sims, Petway, Abrams - heck, even Josh Asselin, who as a player was probably an OVERachiever - and Michigan clearly should have has far more success over the past 10-15 years than they had.
Results minus expecatations = achievement. If the results are better than the expectations, you've achieved over overachieved. If you're left with a negative number, you're an underachiever.

Wrong again, Einstein. MSU was THE number one ranked underachiever in football in a poll that got heavy ESPN discussion either this past year or last. Go to your ESPN Insider page and you can find it there. I would do it myself, but I'm not an ESPN Insider.
I know, Tre, facts are funny things, and you will NOT let them get in the way of your rants.
You sir are in the right church but the wrong pew. As I recall MSU was given the distinction of being the "Most Overrated" (which made this correspondent give the double take as in HUH???) which they earned for lofty pre-season ratings and shitting the bed in fine form over the years. The cherry on the cake was C-Rog's last year when equipment managers under Bobby Wiliams found their #1 priority was keeping the players bongs upright while practice was going on. As our favorite talking head would say "MSU Football has been a grease fire!!"

Maybe it's semantics and we should start a thread "is overrated & underachieving the same thing?"

As you may have realized I have half-heimers but it is coming back to me. It was actually a big feature on the "College Football News.com" web site before last season began and MSU was indeed #1....overrated that is. I can't Goole the fucker though to save my life but I'm positive it was on that site.

WOW!
#1 OVER RATED?! Don't you have to be rated to be over rated?
Anyway, lists like that don't mean diddly. Calling MSU the most over rated football team in the country is bizarre, and I would say they are UNDER achievers more than over rateds.
We ALL know who the real over rated is around these parts.

Zip Goshboots: The Fair and Balanced Poster

WOW!
#1 OVER RATED?! Don't you have to be rated to be over rated?
Anyway, lists like that don't mean diddly. Calling MSU the most over rated football team in the country is bizarre, and I would say they are UNDER achievers more than over rateds.
We ALL know who the real over rated is around these parts.
...Googling this shit 'til I can't see straight. Think back to C-Rog and his last year. Big pic of him and Smoker all mural like on the stadium. That went pffffffft! pretty fast. If memory serves U-M was in the middle of the pack of 25-30 they ranked. Again it had to do with pre-season predictions and finishes over say the last 20 years. If you want to see Lloyd Carrs' name a lot google his name and most overrated football coaches. Hell it's so bad that if you type in overrated his name just pops up. Sorry if this thread has run amuk. If I find that fucking article I'll try and start a new thread. I am certain it was from the College Football News though.

HipDiggity:
You know my feelings on this subject, and you know they are Fair and Balanced.
I tried the same "Googling" techniques and could not locate it either.
What's really funny, though, is that Dr Tre disappeared when I called him on the carpet for his insane statement that MSU football has never made any "list like this".
Anyway, this thread was destined for "amok" when it began, and it has been that way, and that's what makes it fun.
BTW: Google "Lottery winner", "Welfare Check", "Asshole", and "Demolition Derby", and Lloyd's picture is sure to pop up.

HipDiggity:
You know my feelings on this subject, and you know they are Fair and Balanced.
I tried the same "Googling" techniques and could not locate it either.
What's really funny, though, is that Dr Tre disappeared when I called him on the carpet for his insane statement that MSU football has never made any "list like this".
Anyway, this thread was destined for "amok" when it began, and it has been that way, and that's what makes it fun.
BTW: Google "Lottery winner", "Welfare Check", "Asshole", and "Demolition Derby", and Lloyd's picture is sure to pop up.
I find this after my 286th entry into my google search dealio. It is from a blogger called Spartan Bob. Phew! For a 12 hour period there I thought I had lost the remainder of what was once a mind. I would have started a new thread but I couldn't figure it out. I'll just follow along. Baaaaa!


"Short blog tonight. First up is the College Football News ratings of the most under and overrated college football teams. Michigan State finishes first. Yada, yada... dog bites man story. Any serious Spartan knows to plan a Mexico vacation any year when Michigan State is ranked."

As our guy C.C. would say, "MSU Football is a grease fire!" I love 'em. You know it but there's no denying it.

Do you like the "loveable losers", or the crash and burn that is UM football? I don't know which would be more antagonizing.

Basically we can sum it up with Zip, you were WRONG. haha

Basically we can sum it up with Zip, you were WRONG. haha
MSU football has never been #1 on a list like this, so I shouldn't have mentioned them in this category (off topic, my bad). Let me get us back on topic with a quote from the article:

Jethro, Zip, Chris...you can take it from there.

LOL @ Michigan.

More brilliance from Dr Tre, the Hypocrite.
Tre, how DID that bit of "investigative journalism" (you're exclusive report on Keith Nichol) work out?

The more you post, Tre, the more inept you prove yourself to be.
__________________

This arguement is about MSU football and U of M basketball. Why are you bringing up Carr? That has nothing to do with this arguement.

While I wouldn't say every bowl outside the BCS is equivilent to the NIT, Zip makes a good point. All you have to do is be .500 to make a bowl game. You basically have to win 2/3 of your games in a power conference to make the NCAA tourney as an at large bid. Last year 35 bowl teams won 2/3 of their games. When you eliminate the crappy conference teams (like the auto bids in basketball), you are talking about 25-30 legit teams with comparable records to that of an NCAA at large tournament bid. That's 12-15 Bowl games.

So, the NIT is basically like making a bowl game in the 15-20 range in terms of bowl ranks. They don't really have bowl ranks, but your talking about something in the Sun/Music City bowl range basically. In terms of Big Ten bowls, probably the Alamo Bowl.

I still think a Citrus Bowl appearance is better than the NIT, but just barely (Citrus Bowl is 1 bowl above the Alamo). It's probably about the equivilent of making the 2nd round or possible sweet 16. Michigan hasn't even made the tournament, so MSU had a higher peak season in that 10 year period for sure. However, Michigan hoops has been more consistant.

You are basically talking about having 3-4 Alamo Bowl appearances (winning some) vs 1 Citrus Bowl win in 2000 and an Alamo Bowl loss in 2003 (17-3).

In terms of postseason accomplishments that's basically a wash. As Jethro pointed out, Michigan hoops have a better win% over that period so I would give them a SLIGHT edge in terms of overall performance.

Again, you are talking about crap vs really shitty here.

I'm trying to be pretty objective here and just post the facts, but nobody wants to respond to my facts I see.